Should Christians strongly support the SECOND AMENDMENT?

[gigabyte71]

Never? First Great Awakening (1731-1755), Second Great Awakening (1790-1840), Third Great Awakening (1850-1900).

Oh yeah? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." "In God we Trust..."

You one of those who believe that the Holocaust never happened? :smilewinkgrin:

P.S. (Now, no longer a Christian nation.)

"We hold these truths...Creator" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Second, belief in God does not mean Christian. I know far more people who believe in God who absolutely not Christians. The Jews believe in God, they are NOT Christians.

Never was a Christian nation, to believe we ever were is to ignore facts.

 

[PreachTony]

Your problem is your wording. There is tons of evidence that the Founders weren't Christians. This doesn't mean that believers didn't fight in the 1st war for Independence.

BTW: I am very pro-2nd. Though Lincoln destroyed the Republic and the Constitution is ignored in about 90% of the laws of the United States, the 2nd still affords us a semblance of freedom.

It's always amazed me how many people label Lincoln as the greatest President our nation has ever had. (To completely skew history :type The guy raised an army to invade his own country, suspended civil liberties for many citizens, and completely demolished the economic standing of half his country.

I was a History minor in college and it's one of my favorite things to study. Most people only know the oversimplification of history, which is: "Stuff happened and people died."

 

[ROBERTGUWAPO]

Your problem is your wording. There is tons of evidence that the Founders weren't Christians. This doesn't mean that believers didn't fight in the 1st war for Independence.

BTW: I am very pro-2nd. Though Lincoln destroyed the Republic and the Constitution is ignored in about 90% of the laws of the United States, the 2nd still affords us a semblance of freedom.

YOU ARE VERY WRONG!

Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers# of
Founding
Fathers% of
Founding
Fathers Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7% Presbyterian 30 18.6% Congregationalist 27 16.8% Quaker 7 4.3% Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7% Lutheran 5 3.1% Catholic 3 1.9% Huguenot 3 1.9% Unitarian 3 1.9% Methodist 2 1.2% Calvinist 1 0.6% TOTAL 204
Source: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

(You one of those who believe that the Holocaust was a fairy tale?) :smilewinkgrin:

 

[RLBosley]

What is bad history is saying that citizens during the time of the Founding Fathers were not products of the First Great Awakening. :smilewinkgrin:

You are joking right?

First, no one ever said they weren't "products of the Great Awakening."

Second, what I called bad history is where you said "the early Christians" founded the USA. The term "early Christians" usually refers to the first 300 years of church history, not people from the 1700s. Probably just a typo on your part, but I thought it was funny.

Never? First Great Awakening (1731-1755), Second Great Awakening (1790-1840), Third Great Awakening (1850-1900).

Oh yeah? “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." "In God we Trust..."

You one of those who believe that the Holocaust never happened? :smilewinkgrin:

P.S. (Now, no longer a Christian nation.)

He is right. Never.

The First GA was most likely a great move of God, however I do not think the same can be said of the second. The 2nd GA gave us the Church of Christ, the Mormons, 7th Day Adventism and Charles Finney. Hardly a roaring success.

The term "Creator" in the DoI is almost certainly a reference to the deistic beliefs of the founders. If not then it is at least a vague term that almost any religion can apply to God. Clearly not uniquely Christian.

In God we Trust was not adopted as our motto or on our currency until the 1900s. Therefore it has nothing at all to do with the founders.

 

[gigabyte71]

YOU ARE VERY WRONG!

Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers# of
Founding
Fathers% of
Founding
Fathers Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7% Presbyterian 30 18.6% Congregationalist 27 16.8% Quaker 7 4.3% Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7% Lutheran 5 3.1% Catholic 3 1.9% Huguenot 3 1.9% Unitarian 3 1.9% Methodist 2 1.2% Calvinist 1 0.6% TOTAL 204
Source: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

(You one of those who believe that the Holocaust was a fairy tale?) :smilewinkgrin:

So you believe Church membership makes one a Christian? You obviously don't understand what part Church membership played in daily life during that period. Some States required that you be a member of a certain denomination to be able to be involved in society.

Take a look at this link and you will see, from State Constitutions, the requirements and why people would join a Church.

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/state.html

 

[JonC]

YOU ARE VERY WRONG!

Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers# of
Founding
Fathers% of
Founding
Fathers Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7% Presbyterian 30 18.6% Congregationalist 27 16.8% Quaker 7 4.3% Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7% Lutheran 5 3.1% Catholic 3 1.9% Huguenot 3 1.9% Unitarian 3 1.9% Methodist 2 1.2% Calvinist 1 0.6% TOTAL 204
Source: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

(You one of those who believe that the Holocaust was a fairy tale?) :smilewinkgrin:

I don't know the percentages, but I agree with you that most were Christian. Just providing the denominational affiliation, however, is not really an indicator. Thomas Jefferson, for example, was considered Episcopalian....but he certainly was not Christian (other than secular affiliation...one cannot be a Christian while denying the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, etc). But the broad statement that our founding fathers were not Christian is not correct.

 

[PreachTony]

YOU ARE VERY WRONG!

Source: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

(You one of those who believe that the Holocaust was a fairy tale?) :smilewinkgrin:

Robert - The religious affiliation of the founders does not equate to the establishment of a Christian nation. After the battles with the Barbary Pirates, the United States, through President John Adams, signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which in one place stated:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

 

[RLBosley]

It's always amazed me how many people label Lincoln as the greatest President our nation has ever had. (To completely skew history :type The guy raised an army to invade his own country, suspended civil liberties for many citizens, and completely demolished the economic standing of half his country.

I was a History minor in college and it's one of my favorite things to study. Most people only know the oversimplification of history, which is: "Stuff happened and people died."

:thumbsup::applause:
Thank you sir. This has become my favorite post of the day.

 

[Rolfe]

Let me ask you something. If self-governance is a moral entitlement that all people have, then were the apostles and the early church morally wrong to not seek to change the Roman government?

Is one morally obligated to assert one's moral rights?

 

[Rolfe]

Add to last comment: I am not too sure that they were not seeking a change in the government. Does Scripture speak to this?

 

[RLBosley]

Is one morally obligated to assert one's moral rights?

No, I don't think so. Jesus' moral right was to a fair trial and vindication of all charges as he was the only sinless man. He instead was murdered, and went to the cross willingly never asserting his rights.

But again, this particular angle is not something I have thought extensively about.

Add to last comment: I am not too sure that they were not seeking a change in the government. Does Scripture speak to this?

I don't believe it ever indicates they tried to change the government. The turned the world upside down through the gospel, not civil activism. Whenever Paul appeared before the rulers, he never tried to persuade them to reform the government but instead preached Christ. In the epistles we are never told to reform our government either, but to submit to those in authority.

Now the early church did make appeals to the emperor in order to change policy toward Christians. But nothing that I'm aware of regarding changing the nature of the government. Of course I don't know everything the early church did or wrote either so I could be wrong.

 

[corndogggy]

Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers# of
Founding
Fathers% of
Founding
Fathers Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7% Presbyterian 30 18.6% Congregationalist 27 16.8% Quaker 7 4.3% Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7% Lutheran 5 3.1% Catholic 3 1.9% Huguenot 3 1.9% Unitarian 3 1.9% Methodist 2 1.2% Calvinist 1 0.6% TOTAL 204
Source: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

That's a bunch of crap to be honest. The forefathers were primarily Deists, meaning they believe in a creator God but aren't really Christians, especially since they usually did not see the Bible as the infallible work of God.

Thomas Paine was extremely outspoken about this. Google "the age of reason".

Thomas Jefferson rewrote the New Testament, leaving out anything deemed as superstitious, which includes the virgin birth, the resurrection, and everything in between.

Any writings that our forefathers made official which mentioned God nearly always uses neutral Deist terms. The Creator for example.

George Washington heavily used Deist terms, such as the Grand Architect. He also mentioned Providence quite often which was popular among deists.

Benjamin Franklin wrote this to Ezra Stiles:
"Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children…. I think the System of Morals [devised by Jesus] and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity."

 

[Rolfe]

No, I don't think so. Jesus' moral right was to a fair trial and vindication of all charges as he was the only sinless man. He instead was murdered, and went to the cross willingly never asserting his rights.

But again, this particular angle is not something I have thought extensively about.

Yep. Good point.

I don't believe it ever indicates they tried to change the government. The turned the world upside down through the gospel, not civil activism. Whenever Paul appeared before the rulers, he never tried to persuade them to reform the government but instead preached Christ. In the epistles we are never told to reform our government either, but to submit to those in authority.

Now the early church did make appeals to the emperor in order to change policy toward Christians. But nothing that I'm aware of regarding changing the nature of the government. Of course I don't know everything the early church did or wrote either so I could be wrong.

Other than Simon being identified as a Zealot, I cannot think of any mention either way. I must wonder if there was an unmentioned element within the Church that resisted the early persecutions. I will need to add that to my list of questions to ask in Heaven.

 

[RLBosley]

Other than Simon being identified as a Zealot, I cannot think of any mention either way. I must wonder if there was an unmentioned element within the Church that resisted the early persecutions. I will need to add that to my list of questions to ask in Heaven.

IIRC, Zealot could also mean religious fervor, not just identification with the nationalists. Could also be that he was a Zealot pre-conversion, but the name stuck. I don't know.

By resist I assume you mean with violence? From what I've read of the early fathers writings (Now I admit that has been limited and I've read more 2nd hand writings discussing the ECFs) the overwhelming consensus was for nonviolent submission when possible, but firstly obedience to God. I was just reading Athenagoras' Plea (written C. 176) yesterday and he says this:

But for us who are called Christians you have not in like manner cared; but although we commit no wrong—nay, as will appear in the sequel of this discourse, are of all men most piously and righteously disposed towards the Deity and towards your government—you allow us to be harassed, plundered, and persecuted, the multitude making war upon us for our name alone. ... For the fine imposed by our persecutors does not aim merely at our property, nor their insults at our reputation, nor the damage they do us at any other of our greater interests. These we hold in contempt, though to the generality they appear matters of great importance; for we have learned, not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak. But, when we have surrendered our property, they plot against our very bodies and souls

and

If, indeed, any one can convict us of a crime, be it small or great, we do not ask to be excused from punishment, but are prepared to undergo the sharpest and most merciless inflictions.

and

For we shall then conquer them (referring to the persecutors), unhesitatingly surrendering, as we now do, our very lives for the truth’s sake.

Tertullian, Clement, Justin, etc. say similar things.

Of course they could be exaggerating, we don't know for certain. But again the consensus seems to have been nonviolence as a way of life for a Christian, but willingness to disobey and die in order to obey Christ.

 

[glazer1972]

Absolutely